remote sensing
Article
Impacts of Urbanization on the Muthurajawela Marsh and
Negombo Lagoon, Sri Lanka: Implications for Landscape
Planning towards a Sustainable Urban Wetland Ecosystem
Darshana Athukorala 1, *, Ronald C. Estoque 2 , Yuji Murayama 3






Citation: Athukorala, D.; Estoque,
R.C.; Murayama, Y.; Matsushita, B.
Impacts of Urbanization on the
Muthurajawela Marsh and Negombo
Lagoon, Sri Lanka: Implications for
Landscape Planning towards a
Sustainable Urban Wetland
Ecosystem. Remote Sens. 2021, 13, 316.
https://doi.org/10.3390/rs13020316
Received: 25 November 2020
Accepted: 12 January 2021
Published: 18 January 2021
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral
with regard to jurisdictional claims in
published maps and institutional affil-
iations.
Copyright: © 2021 by the authors.
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
This article is an open access article
distributed under the terms and
conditions of the Creative Commons
Attribution (CC BY) license (https://
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/
4.0/).
Remote Sens. 2021, 13, 316. https://doi.org/10.3390/rs13020316
and Bunkei Matsushita 3
1 Graduate School of Life and Environmental Sciences, University of Tsukuba, 1-1-1 Tennodai, Tsukuba,
Ibaraki 305-8572, Japan
2 National Institute for Environmental Studies, Tsukuba, Ibaraki 305-8506, Japan;
estoque.ronaldcanero@nies.go.jp or rons2k@yahoo.co.uk
3 Faculty of Life and Environmental Sciences, University of Tsukuba, 1-1-1, Tennodai, Tsukuba,
Ibaraki 305-8572, Japan; mura@geoenv.tsukuba.ac.jp (Y.M.); matsushita.bunkei.gn@u.tsukuba.ac.jp (B.M.)
* Correspondence: s1830207@s.tsukuba.ac.jp or darshana12594@gmail.com
Abstract: Urban wetland ecosystems (UWEs) play important social and ecological roles but are
often adversely affected by urban landscape transformations. Spatio-temporal analyses to gain
insights into the trajectories of landscape changes in these ecosystems are needed for better landscape
planning towards sustainable UWEs. In this study, we examined the impacts of urbanization on the
Muthurajawela Marsh and Negombo Lagoon (MMNL), an important UWE in Sri Lanka that provides
valuable ecosystem services. We used remote sensing data to detect changes in the land use/cover
(LUC) of the MMNL over a two-decade period (1997–2017) and spatial metrics to characterize changes
in landscape composition and configuration. The results revealed that the spatial and socio-economic
elements of rapid urbanization of the MMNL had been the main driver of transformation of its natural
environment over the past 20 years. This is indicated by a substantial expansion of settlements (+68%)
and a considerable decrease of marshland and mangrove cover (−41% and −21%, respectively). A
statistical analysis revealed a significant relationship between the change in population density and
the loss of wetland due to settlement expansion at the Grama Niladhari division level (n = 99) (where
wetland includes marshland, mangrove, and water) (1997–2007: R2 = 0.435, p = 0.000; 2007–2017:
R2 = 0.343, p = 0.000). The findings also revealed that most of the observed LUC changes occurred in
areas close to roads and growth nodes (viz. Negombo, Ja-Ela, Wattala, and Katana), which resulted
in both landscape fragmentation and infill urban expansion. We conclude that, in order to ensure
the sustainability of the MMNL, there is an urgent need for forward-looking landscape and urban
planning to promote environmentally conscious urban development in the area which is a highly
valuable UWE.
Keywords: wetland; muthurajawela marsh and negombo lagoon; socio-ecological; spatio-temporal
analysis; urban ecology; remote sensing
1. Introduction
Although wetlands account only for 4–6% of the world’s surface area [1], they are
regarded as one of the most productive ecosystems [2,3]. A wetland ecosystem includes
marsh, fen, peatland, shallow water areas, as well as natural and human-made areas
with evidence of intermittent and permanent waterlogged areas between natural wet
aquatic habitats and dry terrestrial ecosystems [4,5]. Wetlands provide valuable social
and ecological benefits, e.g., coastal protection, flood control, carbon sequestration and
biodiversity conservation, among other ecosystem services [6–9]. As such, wetlands play
important roles in the context of the United Nations’ sustainable development goals (SDGs)
and targets [10–12]. Unfortunately, almost 64–71% of the world’s wetlands have been
https://www.mdpi.com/journal/remotesensing
Remote Sens. 2021, 13, 316 2 of 20

transformed, degraded or have disappeared in recent decades as a result of anthropogenic

activities, including industrialization, agriculture, and urbanization [1,13–15].
In 2018, more than 55% of the world’s population lived in urban areas, and this
proportion is projected to reach 68% by 2050 [16]. Such a development would exert
tremendous pressure on the natural environment across urban areas in the world as large
areas transform to impervious surfaces. Studies have shown that rapid, uncontrolled, and
unplanned urbanization has been impacting the quality of urban ecological environments
across the world [17–22], including urban wetland ecosystems (UWEs) [23–27].
Advances in geospatial technology, including geographic information systems (GIS)
and remote sensing, have greatly improved the monitoring of landscape changes over
space and time. Today, information derived from these advancements provides important
input to landscape planning and decision-making in many contexts, biodiversity conserva-
tion [28–31], and sustainable urbanization [32–34]. In fact, Earth observation technologies,
particularly remote sensing, play important roles in the monitoring of various social and
ecological indicators related to the United Nations’ SDGs and targets [35], including those
that are associated with wetlands [11,36,37].
With changes in land use/cover (LUC) due to urbanization, natural landscapes suffer
from irreversible transformation [38]. The monitoring of landscape status over space and
time is hence an essential endeavor. Scholars have shown the usefulness of geospatial
techniques for characterizing landscape patterns, including those of UWEs [27,39,40],
and their changes over time [41–43]. Such information that facilitates impact analysis on
ecosystem services and biodiversity [44–46] can be used to direct landscape and urban
development planning towards sustainable UWEs [45,47,48].
The Muthurajawela Marsh and Negombo Lagoon (MMNL), the biggest coastal salt-
water peat bog in Sri Lanka, is located on the western coastal belt between the Kelani
River and Negombo Lagoon lying inland to Katana, Wattala, Ja-Ela, and Negombo in the
Gampaha District of the Western Province. The Muthurajawela Marsh, together with the
lagoon, creates an integrated coastal wetland ecosystem. The complex development of
this landscape during the Holocene period (Circa 6000–5000 years) progressed after the
final glacial period (Figure 1) [49–51]. The MMNL has been, and is still today, an important
UWE in the country. Its estimated monetary value is around Rs 726.5 million per year,
including benefits from flood prevention, treatment of wastewater, and shallow coastal
fisheries [52].

Figure 1. Geological evolution of the Muthurajawela Marsh and Negombo Lagoon (MMNL), Sri Lanka, from the Holocene
period to the present. (a) The MMNL in the mid-Holocene period, marked with a marine regression, exposing a wider
coastal area; (b) Wetland started to form (c. 7000); (c) Formation of wetland from south to north and clay deposits continued
(c. 6500); (d) Marshland and lagoon started to form as an interdependent ecological system (c. 6500–6300); (e) Formation
of marshland and lagoon continued at the final stage, forming one contiguous wetland (c. 6000); and (f) The present
condition in which the MMNL is an important urban wetland ecosystem (UWE) in the Colombo Metropolitan Region with
high socio-ecological significance. The images were sourced from the MMNL’s master plan and MMNL’s conservation
management plan [49,50].
Remote Sens. 2021, 13, 316 3 of 20

The Colombo Metropolitan Region (CMR), the country’s capital and the location of the
MMNL, has grown very rapidly over the recent decades. For example, CMR’s population
grew from 3.9 million in 1981 to 5.8 million in 2012 [53]. Consequently, the area of built-
up lands in the CMR also expanded dramatically from 11,165 ha in 1992 to 35,876 ha in
2014 [54]. There have been several studies on MMNL [55,56], but a study that focuses on
the impacts of urbanization on this highly valuable UWE is still lacking.
Hence, the focus in this study is specifically on detecting changes in the LUC and
examining the landscape composition and configuration of the MMNL over the past
two decades (1997–2017) by using remote sensing data and spatial metrics respectively.
The loss of wetland (water, mangrove, and marshland) due to urbanization (settlement
expansion) was quantified and the influence of population growth to this LUC transition
was investigated. The implications of the findings for landscape and urban planning
towards sustainable UWEs are discussed.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. The MMNL, Sri Lanka
The MMNL, extending over roughly 134 km2 (Figure 2), consists of the Gampaha
District’s four Divisional Secretariats (DS). This area has been experiencing rapid urban-
ization and economic growth over the past three decades. The landscape of the MMNL
encompasses various land surface features, including the lagoon and marsh and mangrove
areas, as well as some highly and moderately urbanized lands.
The MMNL receives freshwater from the eastward direction via two channels (viz.
lower Aththanagalu Oya and lower Kelani Ganga). The area has a gentle slope, with an
elevation range of 0–30 m. According to the geological timetable, the MMNL belongs to
the Quaternary soil group, which is composed of soil deposits from wind-blown sands,
river deposits, and lacustrine sediments [57]. The area has a tropical monsoon climate as
per the Koppen classification [58]. The wet season is from May to September, and the dry
season is from December to early March. Mean annual rainfall is between 2000 mm and
2500 mm, with mean annual daytime temperatures ranging from 22.5 ◦ C to 25.0 ◦ C [59].
Demographically, the MMNL contains urban and rural settlements. However, due
to a rising population and rapid urban expansion, many parts of this valuable UWE have
become highly vulnerable to the impacts of urbanization, including the Muthurajawela
Marsh, which contains two protected areas (Figure 2). The lagoon is a shallow-water
coastal water body and a highly productive fish area [52]. It is joined to the Indian Ocean
by a single narrow opening in the north. This, too, will continue to be affected if the rapid
urbanization of the area is not controlled and carefully planned.
In fact, the lagoon had initially been utilized by the fishing industry and the neigh-
boring area had been occupied by settlements and industries [51,60]. However, over the
past 60 years, parts of the lagoon have been reclaimed for various purposes, including
illegitimate settlements that have extended to intertidal sands along the channel segments
of the estuary [51,52]. Unlawful activities, such as illegal settlements, illegal fishing, and
illegal cutting of trees, as well as waste dumping and water pollution, are among the
important current concerns with regard to the management of the MMNL [51,52].

2.2. LUC Mapping

We used three Landsat images for this study, viz. two TM (Thematic Mapper) images
captured in 1997-02-07 and 2007-01-02, and one OLI/TIRS (Operational Land Imager/
Thermal Infrared Sensor) image captured in 2017-01-31. They were sourced from the USGS
(https://earthexplorer.usgs.gov/). The images have a spatial resolution of 30 m. Only
one Landsat scene was needed for the study area. Temporal consistency and cloud cover
were considered in the selection of the images. All the images were acquired during the
cloud-free, dry season.
Before LUC classification, we first created a wetland classification scheme comprising
four classes: settlement, marshland, mangrove, and water (Table 1). These LUC classes
Remote Sens. 2021, 13, 316 4 of 20

reflect the physical characteristics of the study area and have been widely used in previous
studies [61–63].

Figure 2. Location of the MMNL. (a) Map of Sri Lanka, (b) Gampaha District, and (c) a 3D map of the MMNL produced
using a 30 m digital elevation model (ASTER). The Google Earth image was acquired on 17 February 2017.

The three Landsat images were classified using a hybrid classification method, i.e.,
a combination of unsupervised and supervised classification techniques [64,65], which
was performed in ArcGIS 10.6. First, we used the ISODATA clustering algorithm, an
unsupervised classification algorithm, to produce 14 clusters for each image. We used
bands 5, 4, and 3 for the TM images and bands 6, 5, and 4 for the OLI/TIRS image. Second,
we performed a supervised classification using the maximum likelihood algorithm and
the result of the first step as input. For the training sites, we digitized 15 training samples
for each class, where the number of pixels per sample ranged from 20 to 782. In total, we
digitized 60 samples per image. We assessed the accuracy of the classified 1997, 2007, and
2017 LUC maps using 400 random points. Google Earth was the source of reference data
Remote Sens. 2021, 13, 316 5 of 20

for 2007 and 2017. For 1997, we used topographic maps from the Survey Department of Sri
Lanka [66].

Table 1. Wetland classification scheme used in this study.

LUC Class Land Surface Features

Urban, residential, industrial, transportation (roads, train lines),
Settlement communications and utilities infrastructure, airports, home gardens,
concrete structures, power plants, and asphalt areas.
Seasonally flooded areas with abandoned paddy fields, intermittently
Marshland flooded areas with agriculture, marsh plant communities, trees, scrub and
grassland, peat soil, bog soil and back swamp, and other cultivated areas.
Seasonally flooded areas with mangroves, intermittently flooded areas
Mangrove
with mangroves and mangrove pneumatophore areas.
Water Lagoon, streams, canals, and ponds.

2.3. Assessment of LUC Changes in the MMNL

We calculated the loss and gain areas and rates for each LUC class using Equations (1)
and (2), respectively [67].
L/G area = Ab − A a (1)
L/G rate (%) = ( Ab − A a )/A a ×100 (2)
where L/G area refers to the area that each class lost or gained (ha) between two time
points. L/G rate refers to the percentage of loss or gain (%) of each class area. Aa and Ab
are the beginning and the end values of each class, respectively.

2.4. Assessment of Wetland Loss Across Grama Niladhari (GN) Divisions

Due to rapid urbanization, there is a high likelihood of the wetland area and its
surrounding areas being converted to urban land use. Here, we identified the top wetland-
losing GNs susceptible to urbanization (settlement expansion) over the study period.
Currently, there are 99 GN divisions in the study area. To do this, we calculated the density
of wetland loss due to urbanization across the GNs during the first time period (TP1) (1997–
2007) and second time period (TP2) (2007–2017) using Equations (3) and (4), respectively.

W L TP1
W LDTP1 (%) = × 100 (3)
A
W L TP2
W LDTP2 (%) = × 100 (4)
A
where W LDTP1 (%) and W LDTP2 (%) refer to the density of wetland loss density in a
particular GN due to urbanization (settlement expansion) during the two time periods (first
and second, respectively). W L TP1 and W L TP2 are the areas of wetland loss in a particular
GN due to urbanization during the two time periods (first and second, respectively). A
refers to the area of a particular GN. Wetland includes water, mangrove, and marshland.

2.5. Relationship between Urbanization and Wetland Loss

We examined the relationship between urbanization as proxied by the change in
population density (CPD) (Equations (5) and (6)) and density of wetland loss due to
settlement expansion (WLD) at the GN division level. Since the 1997, 2007, and 2017
population data at the GN division level were not available, we extrapolated such data
based on the average population growth rate (APGR) of Katana Wattala, Ja-Ela, and
Negombo DS divisions for 1981, 2001, and 2012 census years. Each of these DS divisions
consisted of a number of GN divisions. Thus, for those GN divisions that belonged to a
particular DS division, only one APGR was used. Finally, scatter plots were produced
Remote Sens. 2021, 13, 316 6 of 20

between CPD (x) and WLD (y) for both periods (TP1 and TP2) to examine the relationship
between urbanization and wetland loss.
PD2007 − PD1997
CPDTP1 (%) = × 100 (5)
PD1997

PD2017 − PD2007
CPDTP2 (%) = × 100 (6)
PD2007
where CPDTP1 (%) and CPDTP2 (%) refer to the change in population density in a particular
GN during the two time periods (first and second, respectively). PD refers to the population
density of a particular GN.

2.6. Landscape Pattern Analysis

Many scholars have discussed the usefulness of spatial metrics for landscape pattern
analysis [68,69]. Landscape-level metrics provide general information about landscape
patterns in the study area. On the other hand, class-level metrics include more detailed
descriptions of landscape patterns based on class-level information. Using FRAGSTATS
V4.2, landscape-level and class-level metrics were computed to gain insights into the
changes in the landscape pattern of the MMNL (Table 2).

Table 2. Class and landscape-level spatial metrics [70].

Metric Equation Unit Definition

Reflects the number of patches
of the similar patch type or LUC
Number of Patches (NP) NP = ni None
class; a simple measure of the
degree of fragmentation
Equal to the number of patches
at each LUC class per unit area.
Patch Density (PD) PD = nAi (10, 000)(100) No. per 100 ha
A limited, yet important feature
of the landscaping
Measures based on edge length
Edge Density (ED) ∑m
k=1 eik Meters per ha of a specific LUC class per unit
ED = A (10, 000)
area
Quantifies the percentage of
n total landscape area taken up by
Largest Patch Index (LPI) max (aij ) Percent the largest patch at the class
j=i level. It is a simple indicator of
LPI = A (100)
dominance
A measure of the total edge or
0.25 ∑m e∗ edge density within the
Landscape Shape Index (LSI) LSI = √k=1 ik None
A landscape divided by the total
landscape.
The physical connectivity of the
corresponding patch type of
None LUC class. Rises with more
" #
∑nj=1 Pij∗
i −1
Cohesion (COHESION)
h
COHESION = 1− . 1− √1 . (100) 0–100 clustering of the patch type in
n P∗ a∗ Z
q
∑j=1 ij ij
its configuration, resulting in a
more physical combination.
Reflects the landscape
heterogeneity and compares
m
Shannon’s Diversity Index (SHDI) SHDI= − ∑ (Pi InPi )
◦
Information various landscapes or the same
i−1 landscape at different times as a
relative index.
Maximum evenness of the area,
− ∑m
◦ reflecting a clear trend among
 
Pi InPi
Shannon’s Evenness Index (SHEI) SHEI =
i=1 None
Inm the patch types at the landscape
level.
Where: i = any LUC patch; ni = number of patches of LUC category i; A = total area of LUC (m2 ); eik is sum o f edge total (m) in LUC class
I—counting landscape boundary and segments; j = 1,2, 3, . . . , n sum of the specific patch area; aij = patch area ij in number of the pixel
; pi = proportion of the i—any LUC area of the total landscape; pij = circumference of patch ij regarding the sum of cell surface; Z = total
pixel in the landscape; m = total patch in the entire area, without landscape border. Patch number was determined based on the eight-cell
neighborhood rule.
RemoteSens.
Remote Sens.2021, 316
13,316
2021,13, 77of
of20
20

3. Results
3. Results
3.1. Classification
3.1. ClassificationAccuracy
Accuracyand
andLUC
LUCChanges
Changes
Theoverall
The overallaccuracy
accuracyofofthe
thethree
threeclassified
classifiedLUC
LUCmaps
mapswas was83.0%
83.0%in in1997,
1997,84.5%
84.5%in in2007,
2007,
and84.8%
and 84.8%in in2017
2017(Appendix
(AppendixA ATable
TableA1).
A1). The
Theprimary
primarycause
causeof ofthe
theclassification
classificationerrors
errors
wasspectral
was spectralconfusion
confusionbecause
becausesome
someof ofthe
thepixels
pixelsofofthe
theLUC
LUCclasses
classeshad
hadsimilar
similarspectral
spectral
reflectance due to soil moisture levels and vegetation types [71,72]. We
reflectance due to soil moisture levels and vegetation types [71,72]. We found that some found that some
mangrove pixels were misclassified as marsh, and some marsh pixels were
mangrove pixels were misclassified as marsh, and some marsh pixels were misclassified as misclassified as
settlementsand
settlements andmangroves,
mangroves,and andsosoonon(Appendix
(AppendixA ATable
TableA1).
A1). Nevertheless,
Nevertheless,the theaccuracy
accuracy
levelsof
levels ofthe
theclassified
classifiedLUC
LUCmaps
mapsof ofthe
theMMNL
MMNLare areadequate
adequatefor forthis
thisstudy.
study. Other
Otherrelated
related
studieshave
studies havereported
reportedoverall
overallaccuracies
accuraciesranging
rangingfrom
from69%69%to to82%
82%[73–75].
[73–75].
TheLUC
The LUCchange
changeanalysis
analysisrevealed
revealedthat thatmarshland
marshlandin inthe
theMMNL
MMNLhad hadbeen
beendrastically
drastically
shrinkingdue
shrinking dueprimarily
primarilytotothe
theexpansion
expansionof ofsettlements.
settlements. ForForexample,
example,of ofthe
the1767
1767hahaand
and
2282ha
2282 hatotal
totalloss
lossof
ofthe
themarshland
marshlandclassclassin inTP1
TP1and
andTP2,
TP2,respectively,
respectively,820.89
820.89haha(43%)
(43%)andand
691.92 ha (42%) were lost from the mangrove class (Figure 3 and Table 3).
691.92 ha (42%) were lost from the mangrove class (Figure 3 and Table 3). During TP1, the During TP1, the
settlementclass
settlement classgained
gainedaatotal
totalarea
areaof of1464
1464ha,ha,whereas
whereasduring
duringTP2,TP2,ititgained
gainedaatotal
totalarea
area
1880.91ha.
1880.91 ha.

Figure 3. LUC maps of the MMNL in 1997, 2007, and 2017 derived from Landsat data (see Methods).

Figure 3. LUC maps of the MMNL in 1997, 2007, and 2017 derived from Landsat data (see Methods).
Remote Sens. 2021, 13, 316 8 of 20

Table 3. LUC transitions in the MMNL (ha).

2007
1997 Total Loss
Marshland Mangrove Water Settlement
(a) 1997–2007
Marshland 3007.89 519.93 2.43 1244.88 4775.13 1767.24
Mangrove 615.42 1081.44 2.79 202.68 1902.33 820.89
Water 65.07 1.44 3118.41 16.83 3201.75 83.34
Settlement 547.29 33.12 1.08 2950.38 3531.87 581.49
Total 4235.67 1635.93 3124.71 4414.77 13,411.08
Gain 1227.78 554.49 6.3 1464.39
2017
2007 Total Loss
Marshland Mangrove Water Settlement
(b) 2007–2017
Marshland 1953.45 538.2 30.51 1713.51 4235.67 2282.22
Mangrove 541.71 944.01 0.9 149.31 1635.93 691.92
Water 10.62 3.15 3092.85 18.09 3124.71 31.86
Settlement 324.09 24.48 4.32 4061.88 4414.77 352.89
Total 2829.87 1509.84 3128.58 5942.79 13,411.08
Gain 876.42 565.83 35.73 1880.91

The mangrove class experienced considerable losses to both the marshland and set-
tlement classes in the two periods. There were some gains in the area of the mangrove
class, but its total loss outweighed its total gain, resulting in net losses during both periods.
Nevertheless, the gain of mangrove from marshland in both periods (520 ha in TP1 and
538 ha in TP2) is a positive sign. This could have been due to the government’s efforts to
conserve the MMN by conducting mangrove reforestation activities in previous years.
Table 4 shows the L/G of the LUC classes in the MMNL in terms of area and rate. The
results revealed that the mangrove class had a net decrease of 266 ha (14%) and 126 ha
(8%) in TP1 and TP2, respectively. The marshland class had a net reduction of 539 ha (11%)
and 1406 ha (33%). By contrast, the settlement class had a net increase of 883 ha (25%) and
1528 ha (35%).

Table 4. Losses and gains of the LUC classes in the MMNL.

L/G Area (ha) L/G Rate (%)

1997–2007
Marshland −539.46 −11.30
Mangrove −266.40 −14.00
Water −77.04 −2.41
Settlement 882.90 25.00
2007–2017
Marshland −1405.80 −33.19
Mangrove −126.09 −7.71
Water 3.87 0.12
Settlement 1528.02 34.61

Figure 4 shows the spatial distribution of wetland loss due to urbanization (settlement
expansion) in both periods, i.e., the loss of marshland, mangrove, and water. The results
revealed that the central part (south of the lagoon) and the east part of the MMNL became
more fragmented due to road construction. During the 2007–2017 period, the area exhibited
a ribbon type of development. Another pattern that emerged is the settlement cluster in
the middle, western part of the MMNL. In general, settlements consumed mostly the
marshland and mangrove areas in the northern, eastern, and southern parts of the MMNL.
Remote Sens. 2021, 13, 316 9 of 20

Figure 4. Spatial distribution of wetland loss in the MMNL due to urbanization (settlement expan-
sion). (left) 1997 to 2007; and (right) 2007 to 2017. Wetland includes water, mangrove, and marshland.

3.2. Change in Population Density and Loss of Wetland Due to Urbanization

The maps of the GN-level change in population density (CPD) and density of wetland
loss due to urbanization (settlement expansion) (WLD) are shown in Figure 5. The top five
GNs in terms of WLD during TP1 were Thimbirigasyaya, Nayakakanda South, Kurun-
duhena, Welikadamulla, Telangapatha; those during TP2 were Thalahena, Palliyawatta
South, Maha Pamunugama, Pitipana North, Udammita South. A more exhaustive list of
the top GNs in terms of WLD is given in Appendix A Table A2.
The statistical analysis revealed a positive, significant correlation between CPD and
WLD in both time periods (TP1: R2 = 0.435, p = 0.000; TP2: R2 = 0.343, p = 0.000) (Figure 6),
indicating that as the CPD increased, the WLD also increased. This suggests that urbaniza-
tion was, indeed, an important factor or a driver of wetland loss in the MMNL.

3.3. Changes in Landscape Composition and Configuration

At the class-level, the results revealed that between 1997 and 2017, the marshland
class had become more fragmented, as indicated by the overall increase in its number
of patches (NP), patch density (PD), edge density (ED), and the decline in its largest
patch index (LPI), landscape shape index (LSI), and COHESION due to conversions to
settlement marshland and water classes (Figure 7). On the other hand, the mangrove class
had become less fragmented, as indicated by the overall decrease in its NP, PD, and ED.
While its COHESION decreased during the first period, it increased during the second
period. This suggests that the mangrove class, with the loss of some of its fragmented
patches, had become more contiguous from 2007 to 2017. The decrease in LPI and LSI
during the 1997–2017 period was due to mangrove gains, especially those resulting from
the conversion of marshland, suggesting the development of more regular shapes at the
edges of the mangrove. Conversely, the analysis results showed that LPI and LSI in
marshland had fewer regular shapes at the edges, and the patches were more adjoining
compared to the mangrove class. Therefore, the overall result of the mangrove showed
less fragmentation than the marshland class. The settlement class had also become less
Remote Sens. 2021, 13, 316 10 of 20

fragmented, as indicated by the overall decrease in its NP, PD, and ED, and the overall
increase in its COHESION. The expansion of settlements to adjacent areas resulted in an
infilling pattern of urban growth, and eventually in a more contiguous and aggregated
configuration of the settlement class. This observation is also supported by the increasing
pattern of the settlement class’ LPI.

Figure 5. GN-level change in population density (CPD) (a,b) and density of wetland loss due to urbanization (settlement
expansion) (WLD) (c and d) in the MMNL. Wetland includes water, mangrove, and marshland. The numbers on maps (c,d)
refer to the numbers of the GNs in Appendix A Table A2.

Figure 6. Relationship between change in population density (CPD) and density of wetland loss due to settlement expansion
(WLD) in the MMNL during (a) 1997–2007 (TP1) and (b) 2007–2017 (TP1). Each point is a GN division.
Remote Sens. 2021, 13, 316 11 of 20

Figure 7. Class-level spatial metrics for the MMNL (1997–2017).

At the landscape level, the results revealed that SHDI and SHEI had gradually declined
from 1997 to 2017 (Table 5). This indicates that the landscape of MMNL had tended to
be less fragmented, clustering, and aggregating. Moreover, the overall decrease in patch
richness at the class-level had resulted in an overall decrease in SHDI and SHEI at the
landscape-level in the study area.

Table 5. Landscape-level spatial metrics for the MMNL (1997–2017).

Year SHDI SHEI

1997 1.3383 0.9654
2007 1.3263 0.9567
2017 1.2832 0.9256

4. Discussion
4.1. Landscape Transformation of the MMNL
The MMNL is an important UWE in Sri Lanka owing to its biodiverse ecosystem that
is home to numerous wildlife, water habitat species, and migratory birds [50], besides the
various ecosystem services it provides [52]. Our findings showed that the landscape of this
highly valuable UWE had been transformed dramatically over the past two decades, losing
considerable expanses of its marshland and mangrove cover due to rapid, unplanned and
uncontrolled urbanization (settlement expansion) (Figures 3 and 4; Table 3).
Urbanization, led by socio-economic and biophysical factors, has altered and is still
altering the MMNL landscape. If this wetland change trend continues, it may adversely
Remote Sens. 2021, 13, 316 12 of 20

impact the ecosystem services, biodiversity and aesthetic value of the area. There are
indications of an infilling urban growth pattern in the MMNL (Figure 3) and clear signs of
illegal settlements inside the wetland area. The uncontrolled urban expansion of the CMR
and its effects on landscape changes have caused many socio-economic and ecological
problems, as well as an overall degradation of the natural environment in the study area.
Today, the MMNL has been fragmented into four parts owing to settlements, the
construction of the main road and the Colombo-Katunayake Expressway [76], and the area
experiencing a ribbon type-development during the 2007–2017 period. This expressway
runs along the marshland, and a small piece of the Negombo lagoon can be clearly iden-
tified in our classified maps, especially in 2007 and 2017 (Figures 3 and 4). Using urban
wetland modelling, Zubair et al. (2017) [77] found that two of the main watersheds had
increased, but subsequently decreased in one due to urban expansion. These findings
generally support our results on the effects of human intervention, as indicated in previous
research [78].
Availability and reclamation of natural wetland areas according to environment-
friendly policies and enforcement of regulations are crucial to the protection and conser-
vation of the MMNL. Restoration of wetland vegetation is vital, particularly in the highly
populated areas of the GN divisions. A top-to-bottom approach should be adopted to
ensure judicious use of wetland to ensure its protection and sustainability. Generally,
wetland areas play an essential role in mitigating the urban heat island effect [79]. The
MMNL is situated in the CMR which covers a considerable area. Conserving this highly
valuable wetland will promote the cooling effect for better living conditions for the city
dwellers of the CMR. Therefore, the protection and sustainability of the wetland should be
promoted systematically by policymakers and urban planners.
In this study, we used a hybrid method (unsupervised and supervised) to classify the
LUC of the MMNL from Landsat imagery (see Section 2.2). The method minimized classifi-
cation errors. Overall, this hybrid classification provides comprehensive classifications of
natural plant vegetation and soil moisture levels in urban wetland areas [80]. The overall
accuracy of our three classified LUC maps was 83.0% in 1997, 84.5% in 2007, and 84.8% in
2017. Similar findings were reported by reference [64] in their small wetlands mapping in
Kenya and Tanzania, where using unsupervised and supervised approaches, the overall
classification accuracy was 83%. Lane et al. (2014) [81] reports an overall accuracy of
86.5% in wetland classification using eight-band high-resolution satellite data and a hybrid
mapping approach in the Selenga River Delta in southeastern Siberia, Russia.
In general, settlement expansion can be correlated with rapid population growth in
the MMNL. It is important to note that the MMNL is located in the Gampaha District
of Sri Lanka, the second most populous district in Sri Lanka after the Colombo District.
Rural-urban migration due to the establishment of Export Processing Zones (viz. Biyagama,
Katunayake) in the Gampaha District [82] contributed to the higher population growth
during the 1990s. Job opportunities in these Export Processing Zones provided better living
conditions for migrants. Given the decline in agricultural productivity in the country’s
dry regions, the government encouraged rural-urban migration to reduce poverty [83]. In
particular, post-war policies and development projects in the CMR resulted in the country’s
industrial capital becoming an important driver of rapid urban growth of the CMR after
2009 [84].
Figure 8 projects continuous growth in four DS divisions in the study area from 1981
to 2051. The dramatic increase in the urban population of four DS divisions in the study
area is expected to continue in the future. From 1997 to 2017, the population of the study
area increased by 15.51%. The population density of the Wattala and Ja-Ela DS divisions
was higher than that of Katana and Negombo, indicating high urban pressure radiating
from the capital of Colombo and the core of the Gampaha District (Figures 2, 3 and 5).
However, the Negombo DS division should not be ignored because this DS division has
a significant effect on the wetland’s northern part (Figure 2), which has been impacted
Remote Sens. 2021, 13, 316 13 of 20

by rapid population growth leading to residential (including illegal settlements) and

non-residential developments in industrial and commercial sectors.

Figure 8. Projected population trend for Wattala, Ja-Ela, Katana and Negombo DSDs of Gampaha District: The population
data for 1981, 2001 and 2012 were sourced from the Department of Census and Statistics, Sri Lanka [85]. The 1991 population
was projected using growth rates of 5.1%, 2.6%, 2.1%, and 6.9% for Wattala, Ja-Ela, Katana, and Negombo, respectively.
From 2021 to 2051, growth rates were projected using rates of 0.87%, 0.83%, 0.51%, and −0.13% for Wattala, Ja-Ela, Katana,
and Negombo, respectively.

In wetland change analyses, researchers have identified some implications of wetland

landscape pattern changes due to urbanization [86,87]. There is evidence that environmen-
tal degradation is very much related to economic growth, as reflected particularly in per
capita income [88]. A spatial metrics analysis shows that the MMNL settlement areas have
become less fragmented (Figure 7) due to the decrease in the number of settlement patches
along the roads and the dispersion of newly established patches from existing settlement
areas around growth nodes (i.e., Negombo, Ja Ela, and Wattala) (Figure 2) and admin-
istrative centers. Furthermore, current settlement patches have become more extensive,
and the gaps between settlement patches have diminished. While the expansion process
has led to the development of settlement patches, there is a reduction in the distance
between settlement patches due to the impact of dispersion in the MMNL. This rapid urban
development of the MMNL and its subsequent wetland landscape changes have created
many socio-ecological problems (Figure 9).
The MMNL has already been encroached upon by the urban sprawl; further infilling
patterns are anticipated. Several factors can cause further fragmentation of the MMNL’s
landscape and dispersed growth. The MMNL is located in the western coastal plain
of Sri Lanka (Figure 2), and there are no significant physical restrictions, such as high
altitudes and steep slopes, which promote fragmentation of the landscape. In the past
two decades, a significant expansion of road networks (Figure 3) has shortened travel
time from the urban center (capital city of Colombo and the core of the Gampaha District)
to the suburbs (Negombo, Katana, Wattala, and Ja Ela) and Katunayake Bandaranaike
International Airport. While people moving to the suburbs facilitate the fragmentation of
the wetland landscape, the lagoon fishing industry and its settlements, as well as illegal
wetland reclamation, also contribute to wetland degradation and land fragmentation.
Wetland areas along the roads have progressively been turned into settlements (Figure 4).
Moreover, push factors, such as high housing costs and service value and land prices in
urban core areas have facilitated the fragmentation of wetland areas, including marshland
and mangrove areas, over the last two decades in the MMNL. Accordingly, such issues
Remote Sens. 2021, 13, 316 14 of 20

concerning future wetland landscape and urban planning activities in and around the
MMNL must be addressed.

Figure 9. Some fieldwork photos of the MMNL: (a) Human encroachment in Negombo Lagoon area, (b) Illegal settlements
of the study area, (c) Dumping of garbage into the lagoon, and (d) Human activities inside the Muthurajawela marshland.
Source: First author (D. A.), 2017.

4.2. Implications for Wetland Sustainability

A variety of environmental and socio-economic problems have arisen as a result of
the rapid urbanization process in the MMNL, such as extensive degradation of wetland
ecosystems and loss of important wetland ecosystem services that affect flood control,
carbon sequestration, wetland productivity, the quantity of fish in the lagoon, urban
poverty, and slum development. Besides the ongoing urbanization process that has led to
the loss of wetland areas, current policies and regulations have not adequately addressed
increasing land fragmentation and scattered settlements in the MMNL. Land fragmentation
is threatening the sustainability of this urban wetland.
This study was performed on 4 DS divisions and 99 GN divisions in the Gampaha Dis-
trict (Figures 2 and 5). Local government authorities should consider stricter enforcement
of protection and conservation measures for wetland areas that have become increasingly
degraded. It would be useful for the Department of Wildlife Conservation, the Ministry of
Environment, the Central Environmental Authority, and the Urban Development Author-
ity to undertake wetland conservation projects, in particular, wetland restoration projects
and community-based approaches with judicious use of wetland. While local NGOs and
communities are also involved in implementing the Muthurajawela Wetland Management
Plan [49,50,89], the aims of their management plan have yet to be achieved. Time is of the
essence. Therefore, it is strongly recommended that city planners and local policymakers
implement new laws and legislation without further delay to protect this wetland.
RS data and GIS techniques are useful for spatial analysis [90]. The above study
could be useful in determining how much of the future landscape changes (e.g., the
spatial extent of urban areas towards natural environment and urban wetland areas) could
be compensated by comprehensive land-use practices and environmental rehabilitation
activities such as reforestation programs in mangrove and also natural areas. The recovery
of the wetland has significant potential to reduce the pressure on the carrying capacity of
Remote Sens. 2021, 13, 316 15 of 20

the MMNL by human activity. Once the MMNL has been changed into a settlement, it
would be difficult to reverse the conversion.
Against this backdrop, it is evident that scientifically sound knowledge is needed to
help urban landscape planners and policymakers tackle socio-ecological issues and achieve
the essential SDGs [35] to ensure wise and sustainable use of the MMNL. Indeed, wetlands
provide multiple services and benefits to people and are vital to attaining the SDGs [91]
and Aichi Targets of the Convention on Biological Diversity [92]. The fourth Strategic Plan
(2016–2024) of the Ramsar Convention has identified four major objectives and 19 specific
objectives in this regard. Therefore, the authorities should aim to implement the Ramsar
Convention’s Strategic Plans and attain the Aichi Targets so as to mitigate socio-ecological
problems associated with urbanization and protect wetland landscapes.

4.3. Limitations and Prospects for Future Wetland Study

This study used three satellite images captured in 1997, 2007, and 2017. More satellite
images taken at different time points would provide valuable details, leading to a better
spatial-temporal analysis. We need to point out that this investigation was limited by
the lack of other clear and accessible satellite images temporarily compatible with the
three satellite images employed. Another limitation was the unavailability of actual socio-
economic data of the study area. Simultaneous and direct measurements are required to
understand effective wetland conservation and protection strategies. Direct observations
of urban wetlands can provide valuable knowledge for potential wetland management
over the next few decades. We propose that future studies use much higher-resolution
remote sensing images to investigate wetlands (at least for Sri Lanka). We need contempo-
rary and long-term observations to appreciate the challenges in ensuring urban wetland
sustainability.

5. Conclusions
We examined the impacts of urbanization on the Muthurajawela Marsh and Negombo
Lagoon (MMNL), an important urban wetland ecosystem (UWE) in Sri Lanka owing
to the valuable ecosystem services it provides. We found a substantial expansion of
its settlements (+68%) and a considerable decrease in the extent of its marshland and
mangrove forests (−41% and −21%, respectively). A statistical analysis revealed a positive,
significant relationship between the change in population density and the loss of wetland
due to settlement expansion, indicating that urbanization had indeed played a major
role in the landscape transformation of the MMNL. The findings also revealed that most
of the observed LUC changes occurred in areas close to roads and growth nodes (viz.
Negombo, Ja-Ela, Wattala, and Katana), resulting in landscape fragmentation and infill
urban expansion. The results indicated that the spatial and socio-economic elements of
rapid urbanization of the MMNL had been the main driver of the transformation of its
natural environment over the past 20 years. The study also showed that a hybrid mapping
approach (unsupervised and supervised) can improve urban wetland mapping accuracy
from remote sensing satellite imagery.
Overall, we conclude that, in order to ensure the sustainability of the MMNL, which is
a highly valuable UWE, there is an urgent need for forward-looking landscape and urban
planning that could promote environmentally-conscious urban development in the area.

Author Contributions: Conceptualization, D.A.; methodology, D.A. and R.C.E.; software, D.A. and
R.C.E.; validation D.A., R.C.E., and Y.M.; formal analysis, D.A. and R.C.E.; investigation, D.A. and
R.C.E.; resources, D.A.; data curation, D.A.; writing—original draft preparation, D.A.; writing—
review and editing, R.C.E., Y.M., and B.M.; visualization, D.A.; supervision, Y.M. and B.M.; project
administration, Y.M. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This research received no external funding.
Institutional Review Board Statement: Not applicable.
Informed Consent Statement: Not applicable.
Remote Sens. 2021, 13, 316 16 of 20

Data Availability Statement: The data that support the findings of this study are available from the
corresponding author on reasonable request.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Abbreviations

UWEs Urban Wetland Ecosystems

MMNL Muthurajawela Marsh and Negombo Lagoon
SDGs Sustainable Development Goals
GIS Geographic Information Systems
LUC Land Use/Cover
CMR Colombo Metropolitan Region
DS Divisional Secretariat
TM Thematic Mapper
OLI/TIRS Operational Land Imager/Thermal Infrared Sensor
ETM+ Enhanced Thematic Mapper Plus
GN Grama Niladhari
WLD Wetland Loss Density
WL Wetland Loss
CPD Change in Population Density
APGR Average Population Growth Rate
PD Population Density
NP Number of Patches
PD Patch Density
ED Edge Density
LPI Largest Patch Index
LSI Landscape Shape Index
COHESION Cohesion
SHDI Shannon’s Diversity Index
SHEI Shannon’s Evenness Index
TP Time Point
RS Remote Sensing

Appendix A

Table A1. Confusion matrices of the classified LUC maps of the MMNL.

Reference Data
Classified Data Total User’s Accuracy (%)
Marshland Mangrove Water Settlement
(a) 1997
Marshland 108 17 3 6 134 80.86
Mangrove 15 105 4 5 129 81.40
Water 7 3 42 1 53 79.25
Settlement 3 4 0 77 84 91.67
Total 133 129 49 89 400
Producer’s accuracy (%) 81.20 81.40 85.71 86.52
Overall accuracy (%) = 83.01
(b) 2007
Marshland 112 16 5 4 137 81.75
Mangrove 11 98 4 3 116 84.48
Water 6 1 47 1 55 85.45
Settlement 5 5 1 81 92 88.04
Total 134 120 57 89 400
Producer’s accuracy (%) 83.58 81.67 82.46 91.01
Overall accuracy (%) = 84.50
(c) 2017
Marshland 93 7 7 9 116 80.17
Mangrove 12 108 4 3 127 85.04
Water 5 3 42 1 51 82.35
Settlement 4 5 1 96 106 90.57
Total 114 123 54 109 400
Producer’s accuracy (%) 81.58 87.80 77.78 88.07
Overall accuracy (%) = 84.75
Remote Sens. 2021, 13, 316 17 of 20

Table A2. Top 20 GNs in the MMNL in terms of density of wetland loss due to urbanization
(settlement expansion) (WLD) (%) (see Equations (3) and (4)).

Rank GNs 1997–2007 (TP1) GNs 2007–2017 (TP2)

1 Thimbirigasyaya 76.47 Thalahena 70.24
2 Nayakakanda South 72.37 Palliyawatta South 66.13
3 Kurunduhena 64.86 Maha Pamunugama 66.11
4 Welikadamulla 63.69 Pitipana North 65.22
5 Telangapatha 63.21 Udammita South 64.06
6 Siriwardana Pedesa 62.82 Dandugama 61.13
7 Dungalpitiya 62.36 Pitipana South East 56.51
8 Paranambalama 61.74 Delathura West 56.01
9 Palliyawatta South 61.63 Nagoda 55.18
10 Munnakkarai North 59.94 Bandarawatta West 53.51
11 Doowa 59.57 Ambalammulla 52.41
12 Hendala North 59.26 Welikadamulla 52.35
13 Balagala 56.3 Ja-Ela 52.18
14 Elakanda 54.68 Alawathupitiya 52.12
15 Kerawalapitiya 54.47 Wella Weediya South 52.02
16 Welisara 54.20 Kudahakapola South 51.72
17 Galwetiya 53.42 Pitipana Central 51.46
18 Nedurupitiya 51.71 Indivitiya 51.37
19 Weligampitiya North 50.19 Siriwardana Pedesa 51.21
20 Bopitiya 50.01 Kurana West 50.13

References
1. Gardner, R.C.; Barchiesi, S.; Beltrame, C.; Finlayson, C.; Galewski, T.; Harrison, I.; Paganini, M.; Perennou, C.; Pritchard, D.;
Rosenqvist, A.; et al. Ramsar Convention State of the World’s Wetlands and Their Services to People: A Compilation of Recent Analyses;
Ramsar Briefing note 7: Gland, Switzerland, 2015.
2. Costanza, R.; D’Arge, R.; De Groot, R.; Farber, S.; Grasso, M.; Hannon, B.; Limburg, K.; Naeem, S.; O’Neill, R.V.; Paruelo, J.; et al.
The value of the world’s ecosystem services and natural capital. Nature 1997, 387, 253–260. [CrossRef]
3. Dronova, I.; Gong, P.; Wang, L. Object-based analysis and change detection of major wetland cover types and their classification
uncertainty during the low water period at Poyang Lake, China. Remote Sens. Environ. 2011, 115, 3220–3236. [CrossRef]
4. Ramsar. RAMSAR Homepage. Available online: https://www.ramsar.org/ (accessed on 10 October 2020).
5. Ramsar Convention. An Introduction to the Convention on Wetlands, 5th ed.; Ramsar Convention Secretariat: Gland, Switzerland,
2016.
6. Penatti, C.N.; Almeida, T.I.R.D.; Ferreira, L.G.; Arantes, E.A.; Coe, M.T. Satellite-based hydrological dynamics of the world’s
largest continuous wetland. Remote Sens. Environ. 2015, 170, 1–13. [CrossRef]
7. Reiss, C.K.; Hernandez, E.; Brown, M.T. Application of the landscape development intensity (LDI) index in wetland mitigation
banking. Ecol. Modell. 2014, 271, 83–89. [CrossRef]
8. Gedan, K.B.; Kirwan, M.L.; Wolanski, E.; Barbier, E.B.; Silliman, B.R. The present and future role of coastal wetland vegetation in
protecting shorelines: Answering recent challenges to the paradigm. Clim. Chang. 2011, 7–29. [CrossRef]
9. Dabrowska-Zielinska, K.; Budzynska, M.; Tomaszewska, M.; Bartold, M.; Gatkowska, M.; Malek, I.; Turlej, K.; Napiorkowska, M.
Monitoring Wetlands Ecosystems Using ALOS PALSAR (L-Band, HV) Supplemented by Optical Data: A Case Study of Biebrza
Wetlands in Northeast Poland. Remote Sens. 2014, 1605. [CrossRef]
10. Ramsar Convention. The Fourth Ramsar Strategic Plan 2016–2024, 5th ed.; Ramsar Convention Secretariat: Gland, Switzerland,
2016.
11. Weise, K.; Höfer, R.; Franke, J.; Guelmami, A.; Simonson, W.; Muro, J.; O’Connor, B.; Strauch, A.; Flink, S.; Eberle, J.; et al. Wetland
extent tools for SDG 6.6.1 reporting from the Satellite-based Wetland Observation Service (SWOS). Remote Sens. Environ. 2020,
247, 111892. [CrossRef]
12. United Nations. Sustainable Development Goals. Available online: https://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/sustainable-
development-goals/ (accessed on 10 October 2020).
13. MA (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment). Ecosystems and Human Well-Being: Synthesis; Island Press: Washington, DC, USA, 2005.
14. Euliss, N.H.; Mushet, D.M.; Newton, W.E.; Otto, C.R.V.; Nelson, R.D.; Labaugh, J.W.; Scherff, E.J.; Rosenberry, D.O. Placing prairie
pothole wetlands along spatial and temporal continua to improve integration of wetland function in ecological investigations. J.
Hydrol. 2014, 513, 490–503. [CrossRef]
15. Bouahim, S.; Rhazi, L.; Ernoul, L.; Mathevet, R.; Amami, B.; Er-riyahi, S.; Muller, S.D.; Grillas, P. Combining vulnerability analysis
and perceptions of ecosystem services in sensitive landscapes: A case from western Moroccan temporary wetlands. J. Nat.
Conserv. 2015, 27, 1–9. [CrossRef]
16. United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Population Division. World Urbanization Prospects: The 2018 Revision;
United Nations: New York, NY, USA, 2019.
Remote Sens. 2021, 13, 316 18 of 20

17. Estoque, R.C.; Murayama, Y. Quantifying landscape pattern and ecosystem service value changes in four rapidly urbanizing hill
stations of Southeast Asia. Landsc. Ecol. 2016, 31, 1481–1507. [CrossRef]
18. Michishita, R.; Jiang, Z.; Xu, B. Monitoring two decades of urbanization in the Poyang Lake area, China through spectral unmixing.
Remote Sens. Environ. 2012, 117, 3–18. [CrossRef]
19. Zhou, D.; Zhao, S.; Zhang, L.; Liu, S. Remotely sensed assessment of urbanization effects on vegetation phenology in China’s 32
major cities. Remote Sens. Environ. 2016, 176, 272–281. [CrossRef]
20. Zhang, F.; Yang, X. Improving land cover classification in an urbanized coastal area by random forests: The role of variable
selection. Remote Sens. Environ. 2020, 251, 112105. [CrossRef]
21. Gold, A.C.; Thompson, S.P.; Magel, C.L.; Piehler, M.F. Urbanization alters coastal plain stream carbon export and dissolved
oxygen dynamics. Sci. Total Environ. 2020, 747, 141132. [CrossRef]
22. Gillies, R.R.; Box, J.B.; Symanzik, J.; Rodemaker, E.J. Effects of urbanization on the aquatic fauna of the Line Creek watershed,
Atlanta-A satellite perspective. Remote Sens. Environ. 2003, 86, 411–422. [CrossRef]
23. Mondal, B.; Dolui, G.; Pramanik, M.; Maity, S.; Biswas, S.S.; Pal, R. Urban expansion and wetland shrinkage estimation using a
GIS-based model in the East Kolkata Wetland, India. Ecol. Indic. 2017, 83, 62–73. [CrossRef]
24. Das, A.; Basu, T. Assessment of peri-urban wetland ecological degradation through importance-performance analysis (IPA): A
study on Chatra Wetland, India. Ecol. Indic. 2020, 114, 106274. [CrossRef]
25. Hou, X.; Feng, L.; Tang, J.; Song, X.P.; Liu, J.; Zhang, Y.; Wang, J.; Xu, Y.; Dai, Y.; Zheng, Y.; et al. Anthropogenic transformation of
Yangtze Plain freshwater lakes: Patterns, drivers and impacts. Remote Sens. Environ. 2020, 248, 111998. [CrossRef]
26. Li, Z.; Jiang, W.; Wang, W.; Chen, Z.; Ling, Z.; Lv, J. Ecological risk assessment of the wetlands in Beijing-Tianjin-Hebei urban
agglomeration. Ecol. Indic. 2020, 117, 106677. [CrossRef]
27. Lin, W.; Cen, J.; Xu, D.; Du, S.; Gao, J. Wetland landscape pattern changes over a period of rapid development (1985–2015) in the
ZhouShan Islands of Zhejiang province, China. Estuar. Coast. Shelf Sci. 2018, 213, 148–159. [CrossRef]
28. Nagendra, H.; Lucas, R.; Honrado, J.P.; Jongman, R.H.G.; Tarantino, C.; Adamo, M.; Mairota, P. Remote sensing for conservation
monitoring: Assessing protected areas, habitat extent, habitat condition, species diversity, and threats. Ecol. Indic. 2013, 33, 45–59.
[CrossRef]
29. Yang, C.; Zhang, C.; Li, Q.; Liu, H.; Gao, W.; Shi, T.; Liu, X.; Wu, G. Rapid urbanization and policy variation greatly drive
ecological quality evolution in Guangdong-Hong Kong-Macau Greater Bay Area of China: A remote sensing perspective. Ecol.
Indic. 2020, 115, 106373. [CrossRef]
30. Wiens, J.; Sutter, R.; Anderson, M.; Blanchard, J.; Barnett, A.; Aguilar-Amuchastegui, N.; Avery, C.; Laine, S. Selecting and
conserving lands for biodiversity: The role of remote sensing. Remote Sens. Environ. 2009, 113, 1370–1381. [CrossRef]
31. Wabnitz, C.C.; Andréfouët, S.; Torres-Pulliza, D.; Müller-Karger, F.E.; Kramer, P.A. Regional-scale seagrass habitat mapping in
the Wider Caribbean region using Landsat sensors: Applications to conservation and ecology. Remote Sens. Environ. 2008, 112,
3455–3467. [CrossRef]
32. Zhang, D.; Xu, J.; Zhang, Y.; Wang, J.; He, S.; Zhou, X. Study on sustainable urbanization literature based on Web of Science,
Scopus, and China national knowledge infrastructure: A scientometric analysis in CiteSpace. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 264, 121537.
[CrossRef]
33. Dewan, A.M.; Yamaguchi, Y. Land use and land cover change in Greater Dhaka, Bangladesh: Using remote sensing to promote
sustainable urbanization. Appl. Geogr. 2009, 29, 390–401. [CrossRef]
34. Zhu, Z.; Zhou, Y.; Seto, K.C.; Stokes, E.C.; Deng, C.; Pickett, S.T.A.; Taubenböck, H. Understanding an urbanizing planet: Strategic
directions for remote sensing. Remote Sens. Environ. 2019, 228, 164–182. [CrossRef]
35. Estoque, R.C. A review of the sustainability concept and the state of SDG monitoring using remote sensing. Remote Sens. 2020, 12.
[CrossRef]
36. Jaramillo, F.; Desormeaux, A.; Hedlund, J.; Jawitz, J.W.; Clerici, N.; Piemontese, L.; Rodríguez-Rodriguez, J.A.; Anaya, J.A.;
Blanco-Libreros, J.F.; Borja, S.; et al. Priorities and interactions of Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) with focus on wetlands.
Water 2019, 11. [CrossRef]
37. Fitoka, E.; Tompoulidou, M.; Hatziiordanou, L.; Apostolakis, A.; Höfer, R.; Weise, K.; Ververis, C. Water-related ecosystems’
mapping and assessment based on remote sensing techniques and geospatial analysis: The SWOS national service case of the
Greek Ramsar sites and their catchments. Remote Sens. Environ. 2020, 245, 111795. [CrossRef]
38. Estoque, R.C.; Murayama, Y. Measuring Sustainability Based Upon Various Perspectives: A Case Study of a Hill Station in
Southeast Asia. Ambio 2014, 43, 943–956. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
39. Liu, A.J.; Cameron, G.N. Analysis of landscape patterns in coastal wetlands of Galveston Bay, Texas (USA). Landsc. Ecol. 2001, 16,
581–595. [CrossRef]
40. Festus, O.; Ji, W.; Zubair, O.A. Characterizing the Landscape Structure of Urban Wetlands Using Terrain and Landscape Indices.
Land 2020, 9, 29. [CrossRef]
41. Hassan, M.M. Monitoring land use/land cover change, urban growth dynamics and landscape pattern analysis in five fastest
urbanized cities in Bangladesh. Remote Sens. Appl. Soc. Environ. 2017, 7, 69–83. [CrossRef]
42. Aguilera, F.; Valenzuela, L.M.; Botequilha-Leitão, A. Landscape metrics in the analysis of urban land use patterns: A case study
in a Spanish metropolitan area. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2011, 99, 226–238. [CrossRef]
Remote Sens. 2021, 13, 316 19 of 20

43. Japelaghi, M.; Gholamalifard, M.; Shayesteh, K. Spatio-temporal analysis and prediction of landscape patterns and change
processes in the Central Zagros region, Iran. Remote Sens. Appl. Soc. Environ. 2019, 15, 100244. [CrossRef]
44. Su, S.; Xiao, R.; Jiang, Z.; Zhang, Y. Characterizing landscape pattern and ecosystem service value changes for urbanization
impacts at an eco-regional scale. Appl. Geogr. 2012, 34, 295–305. [CrossRef]
45. Liu, G.; Zhang, L.; Zhang, Q.; Musyimi, Z.; Jiang, Q. Spatio-temporal dynamics of wetland landscape patterns based on remote
sensing in yellow river delta, China. Wetlands 2014, 34, 787–801. [CrossRef]
46. Haas, J.; Ban, Y. Urban growth and environmental impacts in Jing-Jin-Ji, the Yangtze, River Delta and the Pearl River Delta. Int. J.
Appl. Earth Obs. Geoinf. 2014, 30, 42–55. [CrossRef]
47. Li, Y.; Zhu, X.; Sun, X.; Wang, F. Landscape effects of environmental impact on bay-area wetlands under rapid urban expansion
and development policy: A case study of Lianyungang, China. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2010, 94, 218–227. [CrossRef]
48. McInnes, R. Urban Development, Biodiversity and Wetland Management; UN HABITAT: Bioscan (UK) Ltd: Oxford, UK, 2010.
49. Greater Colombo Economic Commission, Euroconsult. Master Plan of Muthurajawela and Negombo Lagoon; Gunaratne offset Ltd.:
Colombo, Sri Lanka, 1991.
50. Central Environmental Authority, Euroconsult. Conservation Master Plan, Muthurajawela Marsh and Negombo Lagoon; Gunaratne
offset Ltd.: Colombo, Sri Lanka, 1994.
51. Bambaradeniya, C.N.B.; Ekanayake, S.P.; Kekulandala, L.D.C.B.; Samarawickrama, V.A.P.; Ratnayake, N.D.; Fernando, R.H.S.S. An
Assessment of the Status of Biodiversity in the Muthurajawela Wetland Sanctuary; IUCN: Colombo, Sri Lanka, 2002; ISBN 9558177172.
52. Central Environmental Authority (CEA). National Wetland Directory of Sri Lanka; CEA: Colombo, Sri Lanka, 2006; ISBN 9558177547.
53. The World Bank. Turning Sri Lanka’s Urban Vision into Policy and Action; The World Bank: Washington, DC, USA, 2012; ISBN
9789558908440.
54. Subasinghe, S.; Estoque, R.; Murayama, Y. Spatiotemporal Analysis of Urban Growth Using GIS and Remote Sensing: A Case
Study of the Colombo Metropolitan Area, Sri Lanka. ISPRS Int. J. Geo-Inf. 2016, 5, 197. [CrossRef]
55. Jayathilake, M.B.; Chandrasekara, W.U. Variation of avifaunal diversity in relation to land-use modifications around a tropical
estuary, the Negombo estuary in Sri Lanka. J. Asia-Pac. Biodivers. 2015, 8, 72–82. [CrossRef]
56. Rebelo, L.M.; Finlayson, C.M.; Nagabhatla, N. Remote sensing and GIS for wetland inventory, mapping and change analysis. J.
Environ. Manag. 2009, 90, 2144–2153. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
57. Cooray, P.G. An Introduction to the Geology of Sri Lanka (Ceylon), 2nd ed.; Colombo National Museums Publication: Colombo, Sri
Lanka, 1984.
58. Köppen, W. Klassifikation der Klimate nach Temperatur, Niederschlag und Jahresablauf (Classification of climates according to
temperature, precipitation and seasonal cycle). Petermanns Geogr. Mitt. 1918, 64, 193–203.
59. Department of Meteorology, Sri Lanka. Weather Forecasts. Available online: http://www.meteo.gov.lk/index.php?lang=en
(accessed on 10 October 2020).
60. Greater Colombo Economic Commission, Euroconsult. Environmental Profile of Muthurajawela and Negombo Lagoon; Gunaratne
offset Ltd.: Colombo, Sri Lanka, 1991.
61. Mao, D.; Wang, Z.; Du, B.; Li, L.; Tian, Y.; Jia, M.; Zeng, Y.; Song, K.; Jiang, M.; Wang, Y. National wetland mapping in China: A
new product resulting from object-based and hierarchical classification of Landsat 8 OLI images. ISPRS J. Photogramm. Remote
Sens. 2020, 164, 11–25. [CrossRef]
62. Reschke, J.; Hüttich, C. Continuous field mapping of Mediterranean wetlands using sub-pixel spectral signatures and multi-
temporal Landsat data. Int. J. Appl. Earth Obs. Geoinf. 2014, 28, 220–229. [CrossRef]
63. Ghosh, S.; Das, A. Urban expansion induced vulnerability assessment of East Kolkata Wetland using Fuzzy MCDM method.
Remote Sens. Appl. Soc. Environ. 2019, 13, 191–203. [CrossRef]
64. Mwita, E.; Menz, G.; Misana, S.; Becker, M.; Kisanga, D.; Boehme, B. Mapping small wetlands of Kenya and Tanzania using
remote sensing techniques. Int. J. Appl. Earth Obs. Geoinf. 2012, 21, 173–183. [CrossRef]
65. Shanmugam, P.; Ahn, Y.H.; Sanjeevi, S. A comparison of the classification of wetland characteristics by linear spectral mixture
modelling and traditional hard classifiers on multispectral remotely sensed imagery in southern India. Ecol. Modell. 2006, 194,
379–394. [CrossRef]
66. Survey Department of Sri Lanka. Available online: https://www.survey.gov.lk/ (accessed on 2 May 2020).
67. Liu, X.; Dong, G.; Wang, X.; Xue, Z.; Jiang, M.; Lu, X.; Zhang, Y. Characterizing the spatial pattern of marshlands in the Sanjiang
Plain, Northeast China. Ecol. Eng. 2013, 53, 335–342. [CrossRef]
68. Estoque, R.C.; Murayama, Y. Landscape pattern and ecosystem service value changes: Implications for environmental sustain-
ability planning for the rapidly urbanizing summer capital of the Philippines. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2013, 116, 60–72. [CrossRef]
69. Zhang, Q.; Chen, C.; Wang, J.; Yang, D.; Zhang, Y.; Wang, Z.; Gao, M. The spatial granularity effect, changing landscape patterns,
and suitable landscape metrics in the Three Gorges Reservoir Area, 1995–2015. Ecol. Indic. 2020, 114, 106259. [CrossRef]
70. McGarigal, K. Fragstats; US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station: Corvallis, OR, USA,
2015; pp. 1–182. [CrossRef]
71. Lu, D.; Weng, Q. Urban Classification Using Full Spectral Information of Landsat ETM+ Imagery in Marion County. Indiana 2005,
71, 1275–1284. [CrossRef]
72. Liu, Y.; Zha, Y.; Gao, J.; Ni, S. Assessment of grassland degradation near Lake Qinghai, West China, using Landsat TM and in situ
reflectance spectra data. Int. J. Remote Sens. 2004, 25, 4177–4189. [CrossRef]
Remote Sens. 2021, 13, 316 20 of 20

73. Sader, S.A.; Ahl, D.; Liou, W.S. Accuracy of landsat-TM and GIS rule-based methods for forest wetland classification in Maine.
Remote Sens. Environ. 1995, 53, 133–144. [CrossRef]
74. Slagter, B.; Tsendbazar, N.-E.; Vollrath, A.; Reiche, J. Mapping wetland characteristics using temporally dense Sentinel-1 and
Sentinel-2 data: A case study in the St. Lucia wetlands, South Africa. Int. J. Appl. Earth Obs. Geoinf. 2020, 86, 102009. [CrossRef]
75. Singh, P.; Javed, S.; Shashtri, S.; Singh, R.P.; Vishwakarma, C.A.; Mukherjee, S. Influence of changes in watershed landuse pattern
on the wetland of Sultanpur National Park, Haryana using remote sensing techniques and hydrochemical analysis. Remote Sens.
Appl. Soc. Environ. 2017, 7, 84–92. [CrossRef]
76. Expressway Operation Maintenance And Management Division Road Development Authority-Sri Lanka. Available online:
http://www.exway.rda.gov.lk/index.php?page=expressway_network/e03 (accessed on 5 May 2020).
77. Zubair, O.A.; Ji, W.; Weilert, T.E. Modeling the Impact of Urban Landscape Change on Urban Wetlands Using Similarity Weighted
Instance-Based Machine Learning and Markov Model. Sustainability 2017, 9, 2223. [CrossRef]
78. Wei, Z.; Jingang, J.; Yubi, Z.H.U. Change in Urban Wetlands and Their Cold Island Effects in Response to Rapid Urbanization.
Chin. Geogr. Sci. 2015, 25, 462–471. [CrossRef]
79. Athukorala, D.; Murayama, Y. Spatial Variation of Land Use/Cover Composition and Impact on Surface Urban Heat Island in a
Tropical Sub-Saharan City of Accra, Ghana. Sustainability 2020, 12, 7953. [CrossRef]
80. Ozesmi, S.L.; Bauer, M.E. Satellite remote sensing of wetlands. Wetl. Ecol. Manag. 2002, 10, 381–402. [CrossRef]
81. Lane, C.R.; Liu, H.; Autrey, B.C.; Anenkhonov, O.A.; Chepinoga, V.V.; Wu, Q. Improved Wetland Classification Using Eight-Band
High Resolution Satellite Imagery and a Hybrid Approach. Remote Sens. 2014, 6, 12187. [CrossRef]
82. Abeywardene, J.; de Alwis, R.; Jayasena, A.; Jayaweera, S.; Sanmugam, T. Export Processing Zones in Sri Lanka: Economic Impact and
Social Issues; Center for Women’s Research: Colombo, Sri Lanka, 1994.
83. Kelegama, S.; Corea, G. Economic Policy in Sri Lanka: Issues and Debates; SAGE Publications: New York, NY, USA, 2004; ISBN
9780761932789.
84. Hogg, C.L. Sri Lanka: Prospects for Reform and Reconciliation; Chatham House: London, UK, 2011.
85. Department of Census and Statistics-Sri Lanka. Available online: http://www.statistics.gov.lk/ (accessed on 3 May 2020).
86. Ancog, R.; Ruzol, C. Urbanization adjacent to a wetland of international importance: The case of Olango Island Wildlife Sanctuary,
Metro Cebu, Philippines. Habitat Int. 2015, 49, 325–332. [CrossRef]
87. Thibault, P.A.; Zippererb, W.C. Temporal changes of wetlands within an urbanizing agricultural landscape. Landsc. Urban Plan.
1994, 28, 245–251. [CrossRef]
88. Akbostanci, E.; Türüt-Aşik, S.; Tunç, G.I. The relationship between income and environment in Turkey: Is there an environmental
Kuznets curve? Energy Policy 2009, 37, 861–867. [CrossRef]
89. Ramsar. Implementation of the Ramsar Convention in General, and of the Ramsar Strategic Plan 1997-2002 in Particular,
during the Period Since the National Report Prepared in 1995 for Ramsar COP6 and 30 June 1998. Available online: https:
//www.ramsar.org/document/cop7-national-reports-sri-lanka (accessed on 14 January 2021).
90. Estoque, R.C.; Murayama, Y. Examining the potential impact of land use/cover changes on the ecosystem services of Baguio city,
the Philippines: A scenario-based analysis. Appl. Geogr. 2012, 35, 316–326. [CrossRef]
91. Ramsar Convention. Scaling up Wetland Conservation, Wise Use and Restoration to Achieve the Sustainable Development Goals; Ramsar
Convention: Ramsar, Iran, 2018; pp. 1–13.
92. United Nations Environment programme (UNEP). The Aichi Passport; United Nations Environment programme (UNEP): Nairobi,
Kenya, 2012.